Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Your skill will accomplish
what the force of many cannot
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Which came first?

by Limbic~Region (Chancellor)
on May 02, 2008 at 13:32 UTC ( #684161=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Which came first?

Arunbear,
Ok, assuming evolution and genetic mutation I answered egg. My 30 seconds of thinking produced the following argument:

Some animal that could not be classified as a chicken was produced offspring via eggs. During sexual reproduction and random gene mutation, the animal that emerged from the egg is what we classify as a chicken.

The above theory is more plausible to me then the idea that chickens produced offspring by live birth and then evolved egg producing. On the other hand, it just delays the question to: Which came first - the animal(s) that gave birth to the chicken or the egg that created that animal(s).

For the record, I am a Christian with a non-traditional perspective.

Cheers - L~R

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Which came first?
by TimToady (Parson) on May 02, 2008 at 17:56 UTC
    Actually, that perspective is also quite traditional, though this is not a comfy factoid to those who are in the business of telling God how he should interpret Genesis 1.
Re^2: Which came first?
by zentara (Archbishop) on May 02, 2008 at 16:11 UTC
    <moment of sanity>

    If I had to stake my life on it, I would agree with something like you said. My guess is that the predecessor of the chicken was some primitive ocean swimming creature that laid eggs to reproduce, like so many other sea creatures. One day, some of them crawled onto land, and their scales gradually modified into feathers( due to the incredible built-in metamorphorsizing abilities of the original gene that originated life (maybe fell in a comet? Maybe airborne O2 causes a different genetic reaction than water-bourne O2?). This became the chicken.

    I'm always fascinated by the gene's ability to do what is necessary.... like if we (humans)were forced back into the sea, would we naturally just start getting webbed fingers and toes( ala Waterworld), without mutation? Just by the genes activating the "waterborn" subroutines, instead of the airborn ones

    One of the basic tenets of Bhuddism, is that "conciousness is an intrinsic part of the cosmos". On a level we don't understand, I believe conciousness can control how our genes function.....turning things on/off as needed. This probably corresponds to the Christian "hidden-hand-of-God" branch of evolutionists.

    </moment of sanity>


    I'm not really a human, but I play one on earth. Cogito ergo sum a bum
      I'm always fascinated by the gene's ability to do what is necessary.... like if we (humans)were forced back into the sea, would we naturally just start getting webbed fingers and toes( ala Waterworld), without mutation? Just by the genes activating the "waterborn" subroutines, instead of the airborn ones
      A gene cannot alter its own behaviour. Rather, we humans (at least most of us!) just don't possess the gene which produces webbed feet. Or, they are inactive. So say we are forced back into the sea, many of us are going to die and thus our genes. The gene responsible for webbed feet will slowly rise in numbers in the gene population thus giving us webbed feet! What I'm hoping to say is that some percentage of humans would be possessing the inactive gene for webbed feet and their offspring will be the ones who survive.

      --
      Rohan
      My guess is that the predecessor of the chicken was some primitive ocean swimming creature that laid eggs to reproduce, like so many other sea creatures.
      According to the latest scientific knowledge, the direct ancestor of the chicken was more likely T-Rex!

      CountZero

      A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James

        The reporting of that research appears to confuse being an ancestor with having a common ancestor
      One of the basic tenets of Bhuddism, is that "conciousness is an intrinsic part of the cosmos". On a level we don't understand, I believe conciousness can control how our genes function.....turning things on/off as needed.

      Trying to refrain from all the jokes about ....conciousness controlling...how our 'jeans' function....turning things on/off -from back in high school...

      I'd propose that when the Creator made "All the beasts of the field", then this would suggest that the chicken was created first, & the egg is meerly the means but which they can sustain the species.
        the Creator made "All the beasts of the field",

        Well I tend toward the blend of creationism and evolution,.... the hidden hand of God. I had a thought last night about this...... thinking "conciousness (the underlying conciousness of the universe, i.e. God, life-force) always try to take form in the material world". Conciousness wants form. So somewhere way down on the sub-atomic level, forces are at work everywhere, to allow DNA to form, by manipulating the tendencies of molecular bonding. Once the DNA exists, it acts as an trigger, and will generate macro-life forms. Chickens and eggs are a great addition to the eco-system, especially in a low tech survival situation. We may be the manifestations in the material world, of God's dream.

        This brings up the next question.... what happens when the created forms, take on their own individual conciousness...the ego. Is this the root of evil? The separation from God-conciousness. Have you ever seen an evil chicken? :-)


        I'm not really a human, but I play one on earth. Cogito ergo sum a bum
      <harold_and_kumar character="President Bush">you just blew my f*cking mind.</harold_and_kumar>
      meh.
Re^2: Which came first?
by goibhniu (Hermit) on May 02, 2008 at 18:00 UTC

    I thought about the same, but got confused when thinking about sexual reproduction (having been a teen male once, you can understand how sex might confuse me).

    A female ${animal that came before a chicken} produces a mutant egg which can be said to be a half-chicken. Did that egg count as a chicken egg? Where's the father who fertilizes that egg? Is the first chicken a half-breed and thus not a full chicken? What kind of eggs did that animal produce? After how much mixing did the half-breeds produce a mother with a chicken-egg and a father with his contribution also 100% chicken?

    Regardless, after about 30 sec, I came to the same conclusion. The chicken-eggs (and other stuff) were being produced long before the first chicken.


    #my sig used to say 'I humbly seek wisdom. '. Now it says:
    use strict;
    use warnings;
    I humbly seek wisdom.
      A female ${animal that came before a chicken} produces a mutant egg which can be said to be a half-chicken. Did that egg count as a chicken egg?
      This is a fairly interesting question by itself, but I would offer two objections with regard to the original question:

      1. Any egg that would produce something that would be considered a chicken is still an egg.

      2. The OP doesn't stipulate any kind of egg, and we can probably safely assume that any direct ancestor(s) to a chicken also reproduced by laying eggs.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://684161]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others avoiding work at the Monastery: (5)
As of 2020-09-25 20:51 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    If at first I donít succeed, I Ö










    Results (141 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?